* Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>A request has been made to remove all usage of the term relative-URI
>from the specification, now listed as issue 046-lc-edit-relative-URI.
>
>The following patch will make that change to draft-06.xml. In spite of
>its length, the change remains IMHO editorial in nature. If you do
>not think it is allowable in the author's 48 hours of modifications
>prior to RFC publication, or if you disagree with the patch, or if
>you feel that this level of churn isn't worth it just to satisfy
>confusion, then please tell us now by replying to this message.
The change is by no means editorial, the term "relative URI" is well-
established and commonly used in many technical specifications, your
proposal to remove any definition for it as well as your previous
proposal which is implemented in the latest draft which changes the
definition of the term as in RFC2396 both harm interoperability which
depends on clear understanding of the terminology. Your proposed change
also completely misses the points of the various concerns raised in this
regard, the problem is not the name "relative URI" but rather "URI"
which is defined in a way incompatible with common usage of the term. I
have asked you three times now since the publication of the latest I-D
for a rationale for this incompatible change and you have failed to
provide one. The change you propose should not by applied but rather the
definition of "URI" should be changed to something that is compatible
with common usage and interpretation of the term.